Yeah, okay, prisoners, except that the way prison works, well, the prisoner is denied all of their rights and thrown into an institution where they have no meaningful agency over their life. They also try to break the sense of self and will of the prisoners to force them into obedience and subservience. The way this is accomplished is very similar to the way it is accomplished in the military -- uniforms, shared living spaces, discipline, structured time, and humiliating punishment if the soldier or prisoner does not obey. Because of the demand for obedience in the military, soldiers gain rank or stature only if they follow the whims of their commanders, not just in battle but also in ordinary training situations such as maintaining a proper dress uniform or walking with the correct posture. Wollstonecraft argued that the lifestyle of the soldier therefore is very similar to the lifestyle of a woman; value is again gained by doing what the soldier's superiors want and maintaining a proper soldier-like appearance, etc. In the second chapter of A Vindication of the Rights of Women, she concludes one thought as follows:

Mary Wollstonecraft wrote:Where is then the sexual difference, when the education has been the same; all the difference that I can discern, arises from the superior advantage of liberty which enables the former to see more of life.

Although the actions demanded of soldiers and women are different as are the standards of dress, she has come to wonder out loud whether or not the semantics are important at all. Instead, she sees two large classes of people made to be subservient by use of the same methods. The methods employed by commanders against soldiers to control them are in many cases the same as those by men over women (especially in Wollstonecraft's time) or those methods used by the police state to control prisoners. The incentives to obey for women or soldiers are slightly different because there are some tangible, if fleeting, rewards for obedience that prisoners do not get, but many other aspects of their conditions are exactly the same. All three of these groups -- prisoners, women, and soldiers -- have had their agency whittled away. What then, is a man without agency? Can he properly be called a man, especially when many times women are 'put in their place' by men calling women out for over-exercise of their own agency? The whole point of sexism is to deny agency to women which helps to perpetuate a condition of womanhood that may have started with some biological underpinnings, but that has been constructed in a much more complex way to remove agency from women and construct them as a lesser class. Having agency removed, therefore, is a foundation of the cultural structure of womanhood -- women (as a cultural idea) are created in large part by removing their agency using the adore-mentioned methods (forced to maintain a certain dress and posture, expected to occupy certain spaces at certain times, etc) that are used to remove agency from soldiers or prisoners.

So, if agency is restricted for women, soldiers, and prisoners, then how can a prisoner's garb be considered masculine when it marks someone who has restricted agency like a woman?

▲▲ ▲

"Each night alone I dream, that I'm a rebel Roller Queen‼I'll be a star that shines, I can make the whole world mine‼"

He only has restricted agency while in the prison. Once he uses his masculine abilities to break out of prison, he has more agency than any of us "law-abiding citizens" who fool ourselves into imagining that only the people in prison are prisoners.

(You should have anticipated this from the hamfisted symbolism of the burst pants.)